JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Japan building 45 HELE coal plants, Australia 1 (maybe)

Japan will use Australian coal to build 45 modern coal fired plants:

Japan is the largest overseas market for Australian coal producers, taking more than a third of all exports.

Why coal? It’s cheaper than gas:

Tom O’Sullivan, a Tokyo based energy consultant with Mathyos Global Advisory, said in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, Japan started importing more liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Australia.

But he said the move to more coal fired power was because coal was cheaper than LNG, and the energy security was priority for the government.

The new ultra super critical coal plants burn hotter and are more efficient (hence, high energy, low emissions = HELE).

Finally, after blackouts and scandalously high electricity bills, Malcolm Turnbull is just starting to float the idea of building, maybe, one. China has them, even Indonesia will get one before us.

Japan needs to import 95% of its energy. Australia is the largest exporter of coal in the world, and has the largest known uranium resources in the world, but we voluntarily wear a hair shirt to appease GAIA. We sacrifice our cheap energy advantage for fear that loud ill-mannered people who are bad at maths will call us selfish and uncaring.

The US meanwhile is ramping up oil and gas production:

The world’s largest oil-consuming country could sell as much as 800,000 barrels a day of crude overseas this year, according to four analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. That’s more than OPEC producers Libya, Qatar, Ecuador and Gabon each pumped in December. The U.S. exported 527,000 barrels a day in the first 11 months of 2016, Energy Information Administration data show.

–Bloomberg

The Trumpocene is a new world, Australia is years behind.

“it is estimated that as many as three-quarters of Australia’s coal-fired power stations are operating beyond their original design life, “

Engineers Australia submission Nov 2016

This week in Australia HELE plants are being called “clean coal” because they produce 15 -50% lower emissions (depending on who you ask and how dirty the old plant is that they replace.) But almost no one even mentioned these plants until last week — clean coal used to mean only the fantasy of carbon capture.

h/t GWPF, David, Scott of the Pacific.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (89 votes cast)
Japan building 45 HELE coal plants, Australia 1 (maybe), 9.5 out of 10 based on 89 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/zqy4fnw

137 comments to Japan building 45 HELE coal plants, Australia 1 (maybe)

  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    Japan’s actions confirm the absurdity of energy policies guided by false AGW claims

    310

    • #
      Oliver K. Manuel

      After only two weeks of Trump in office, the 71-year alliance of George Soros with the UN and UNAS (united national academies of sciences) is starting to crumble:

      http://newsjunkiepost.com/2017/02/02/big-brother-george-soros-web-is-unraveling/

      220

      • #
        LevelGaze

        Oliver, we can only hope.
        I’m not holding my breath.

        170

        • #
          Oliver K. Manuel

          Trump may understand the globalist web of deceit about nuclear energy that engulfed the world on 24 Oct 1945 to save frightened world leaders from possible nuclear annihilation

          http://newsjunkiepost.com/2016/10/30/globalization-expressway-to-universal-slavery/

          PAUL KAZUO KURODA (1917-2001) understood this threat to humanity, and risked the rest ofhis life to retain secret personal possession of Japan’s successful design for atomic bombs:

          1. Autobiography: http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/PKKAutobiography.pdf

          2. Tribute: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/TRIBUTE_TO_KURODA.pdf

          70

          • #
            OrignalSteve

            The UN *is* Communism.

            Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record–Appendix,
            pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

            Current Communist Goals

            EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
            Thursday, January 10, 1963 .

            Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America. At Mrs. Nordman’s request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen: [From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]

            1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

            2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

            3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

            4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

            5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

            6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

            7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

            8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

            9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

            10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

            11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

            70

          • #
            Graham Richards

            Nuclear radiation is so dangerous. You can’t go near contaminated zones……
            Then why are both Hiroshima & Nagasaki thriving metropoli.

            Only thing more dangerous than nuclear power is the bullshit the politicians feed us on every day of our lives.

            70

          • #
            Oliver K. Manuel

            You are astute, Graham Richards.

            Hiroshima and Nagasaki both became thriving metropolis soon after WWII ended, thus . . .

            Confirming Galen Winston’s report that dangers of nuclear radiation were widely exaggerated after WWII

            That was one of many ways the UN and UNAS (united national Academies of Sciences) hid neutron repulsion as the source of energy in atomic bombs from the public

            As noted above, PAUL KAZUO KURODA recognized the logical error in Dr. Carl von Weizsacker’s definition of nuclear binding energy and secretly kept a personal copy of Japan’s successful atomic bomb design in his own possession to thwart UN-UNAS plans to deceive the public.

            See above, recently published tribute to Kuroda: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/TRIBUTE_TO_KURODA.pdf

            40

    • #
      Oliver K. Manuel

      OriginalSteve,

      I have strong, but not flawless evidence, and believe

      1. Stalin possessed the world’s total remaining inventory of atomic bombs after USSR troops captured Japan’s atomic bomb plant at Konan, Korea in Aug 1945.

      2. Stalin convinced leaders of nations and both political parties to unite nations and national academies of sciences under the UN on 24 Oct 1945 to hide the energy in atomic bombs from the public because obviously we are all “Better Red Than Dead!”

      3. The late Senator Joseph McCarthy realized and convinced his friend Joseph Kennedy of this strange ending of WWII during a news blackout of Asian events in Aug-Oct, 1945.

      4. Joseph Kennedy saw the danger to humanity and invested heavily in the political campanigns of two sons, Jack and Robert Kennedy, to become the future United States President and Senator.

      5. After both were assassinated, Richard M. Nixon and Henry Kissinger renegotiated a new peace treaty with the USSR and China in 1971-1972, agreeing to cancel the Apollo Space Program that President Kennedy had started.

      60

      • #
        Oliver K. Manuel

        I forgot to mention that only 12 years after nations and national academies of sciences were united into a supposedly peaceful, one-world government on 24 Oct 1945, . . .

        the USSR violated the agreement by trying to take total control of planet Earth with the surprise launch of the first Sputnik satellite circling and spying on all nations on 4 Oct 1957.

        President Eisenhower responded by funding federal research agencies that would build a massive, industrial-military complex to try to protect the United States from domination by the USSR.

        In Eisenhower’s farewell address to the nation after John Kennedy election to become President in January 1960, . .

        Eisenhower warned the nation that a selfish, scientific-technological group of elitists might take control of US policies by taking control of research funding from the federal research agencies Eisenhower had established to protect the USA.

        Eisenhower’s farewell address seemed to become the blueprint for the US NAS to take control of US policies by controlling annual budget review of federal research agencies for Congress.

        30

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Actions will speak louder than words, there is no debating or reasoning with zealots as the recent Trump victory has highlighted, taking the high ground is a nice notion in civil society but now the rot is being exposed at all levels in what is the fragile beauty of democracy, for Australia to recover and prosper this rot must be extracted from our positions of power by the people so they may relearn the fundamentals of a good republic, only then can this much lauded dream become safely enacted by Australians.

    180

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    Malcolm’s just going ‘softly,softly’ hoping not to stir the green hornets nest too much! Pathetic really . . .
    GeoffW

    330

    • #
      King Geo

      “No green hornets nests” being stirred in SA – and hence the following equation:

      RE + no green hornets nests being stirred = economic ruin.

      And it seems the ALP Vic State Govt is hell-bent on applying this equation – oh dear!!!

      260

  • #
    ianl8888

    … loud ill-mannered people who are bad at maths …

    More accurately, these people mostly from the MSM are scientifically illiterate and mathematically innumerate.

    They know this but do not care. So far, FakeNews has historically worked for them so to regain their credibility and power they believe that doubling that up will work even better. And dirty, black/brown, coal/carbon is a perfect punching bag as most city voters have no experience of sustained loss of grid power (gee, this greenie jargon is really easy).

    240

  • #
    Environment skeptic

    Now that public utilities and so on have undergone the ‘sovereignty capture’ (Privatisation) process, it seems as though it is out of the hands of Joe sixpack from ‘Aye You’ and perhaps even US.

    As for Japan, it is not certain, although it can be fairly certain that at least the nuclear problem was somehow kept ‘in-house’…..no idea about the financial and human resources behind the rescue of Nukes of there.

    36

    • #
      AndyG55

      Japan is right in the middle of major Earthquake zones.

      Personally, I think it is quite sensible of them to get away from nuclear power.

      And certainly very sensible of them to get into using HELE coal.

      That is what ALL countries should be doing: Solid, Safe, Reliable, Long-lasting, Cheap (if allowed a level playing field) ….

      and most importantly… Plant food producing

      502

      • #
        Environment skeptic

        Solar activity report. 100 year low if you can believe the sensors

        140

      • #
        jorgekafkazar

        The Fukushima disaster wasn’t caused by an earthquake damaging the nuclear installation. It was the tsunami that resulted in failure.

        164

        • #
          AndyG55

          Ummmm.. wakey , wakey Jorge…. and what caused the Tsunami ???

          174

        • #
          bobl

          It was caused by neither, it was caused by their auxiliary supply failing because the diesel generators were not properly Flood protected

          190

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            So it was the usual problem of someone with influence authorising the construction of the unit without some of the essential engineering safety measures?

            It’s amazing what corrupt governments can do when they set their minds to it.

            Not quite the same type of thing as South Australia but there is a common thread of self interest in both that says “stuff the stupid voters”.

            Go Brexit.
            Go Trump.
            Advance Australia where?

            KK

            130

            • #
              bobl

              Not exactly, noone foresaw a tsunami! But had the backup generators been in a flood proof position, the shutdown could have been controlled. What I mean to say here is that this accident was avoidable and nuke power can be resumed given some sensible precautions against flooding. NUKE power has on the whole been incredibly safe despite the wailing of greenpiss. The only thing I dislike about nukes is the potential for plutonium manufacture. Thorium or fusion or particle collectors would fix that.

              80

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Hi Bob

                I think it was mentioned at the time that the plant had been given an extension of time that was outside of it’s engineered lifespan.

                This would have been worth a bit to the operators. I’m fairly sure it was being operated past it’s original use by date but that doesn’t counter your point that the original design probably didn’t require the pump safety measures that I referred to.

                I hope we get some of this type of power generation going here in Australia soon. It’s way past time.

                KK

                30

          • #
            Graham Chubb

            The mistake was to use diesel power to drive pumps. From an engineering aspect, the most efficient method of removing heat via water is with steam turbines driving the pumps. The advantages:
            Little maintenance.
            No fuel or electricity.
            Will work under water.
            When insufficient heat is unable to drive the turbine – the problem has been solved.

            30

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        Andy,
        I strongly disagree that coal should be preferred over nuclear for nation size dominant electricity supply. Reasons include -
        1. Future car, aircraft & general transport need all the fossil fuel we can get. Use nuclear, not fossil, for general electricity.
        2. Economic analysis for new builds of nuclear versus ff continue to wrongly include large penalties for nuclear persisting from decades of anti nuclear propaganda. This I know, I was working there. Australia needs to look not to emotional Japan, but to China for indicative economics of new nuclear – from which the Chinese have stripped much of the propaganda costs. Nuclear is fundamentally same cost as coal. Engineering dictates that.
        3. Earthquake zones etc are not a problem. The proper siting of nuclear plant was solved decades ago. Departures from proper engineering have caused accidents, like putting backup electric generators at Fukushima in the tsunami wave reach. It was not a nuclear specific problem, it was a general engineering failure.
        4. The nuclear waste disposal stage is not a problem. Quite adequate solutions have been published and simulated for 40 years. The Australian Synroc process, a top candidate, has notbeven been allowed to go to mid scale demonstration, such is the force of opposition to showing success for this and other nuclear innovation. Meanwhile advances in coal burning get publicity that favours coal in the public mind.
        5. Nuclear is by far the safest of the major forms of electricity generation.

        I could go on, but the points I have chosen are contrary to much public perception and they nead repeating until they sink in.
        Geoff

        190

        • #
          AndyG55

          I reckon thorium nuclear will be the go.. No safety issues at all.

          Its on its way. In the mean time, we have an abundant supply of high quality coal, and the atmosphere needs more CO₂.

          When we are all buried and gone, they will be using thorium nuclear or some other sort of near infinite power, to break down limestone to increase atmospheric CO₂.

          82

          • #
            Environment Skeptic

            How is Thorium refined, and what are the chemicals used and what are the heavy metals, toxins created during the refining process before, even well before thorium makes it to the mythical clean, safe thorium reactor?

            It would be really, really nice if it could be acknowledged that there are many processes that need to occur before the thorium gets to the reactor.

            To answer this question we need to find

            How is thorium extracted??

            What are the chemicals used to refine thorium so it can be used in thorium reactors ?

            How are the tailings and heavy metals that become more concentrated during the refining stages stored and disposed of ??

            etc etc

            It is not enough to look at one side of the process without looking at the other.

            31

            • #
              Environment Skeptic

              I remain skeptical about the environment of ‘niceness’ attributed to thorium while nobody seems to be aware of how it is extracted, refined, and other environmental impacts that are a part of the thorium extraction refining process.

              31

              • #
                Cementafriend

                ES I suggest you sre not a skeptic but a socialist green alarmist. Thorium is easy to extract. The ore is a by product of minerals sands (titanium oxide or rutile) processing. The thorium can be extracted from the byproduct ore by gravimetric and chemical means. The costs are very much beloW recovery and concentration of U233

                61

            • #
              Geoff Sherrington

              ES,
              The information you seek is very easily found by internet search.
              In an Australian context, the dominant reserves of thorium are in the mineral Monazite, a complicated mineral with Thorium, Uranium and several Rare Earth elements. This is typically recovered from Beach sans while mining for Rutile, Zircon and Ilmenite.
              The Monazite is separated by gravity or electrostatic means then dissolved in sulphuric acid. The target element, here Th, is recovered by selective solvent extraction, then precipitated as solid. There are many variations on this scheme, at ribute to the skill of the professional chemist.
              That same skill and professionalism shows itself again in the design and operation of new plant and processes in which protection of the public from harm like under contained toxicity is worn as a badge of pride.
              Which means that people smarter at chemistry than you are looking after your nitpicking concerns.
              Let’s have respect for professional achievement, huh?
              Geoff.

              41

              • #
                ColA

                Geoff is correct, monazite is commonly found in heavy mineral sands in nearly all sand mines operations all over the world. However, is not commonly processed to extract Thorium or other elements mainly because there is little demand for such. The monazite is normally treated as “reject” from electrostatic and electromagnetic separation processing. It is normally remixed with other rejects from the separation processes and returned to mine site. There are huge quantities of Thorium easily available from heavy mineral sand mining in many countries in the world, Australia has significant amounts.
                I think it was in the 50s or 60s that USA buried hundreds of tons of Thorium, drummed and stored in sea containers, in a shallow desert grave somewhere in the US. I think they did that after they decided to go with Uranium/nuclear because they could not make bombs with the Thorium cycle. The Uranium system was then propagated all over the world for the same reason. The yanks did prove the Thorium reactor was viable before the research was dumped!
                China and India are now interested in Thorium LFTR and actively researching. The reactors are inherently “FAIL SAFE” and if they can solve some of the metallurgy problems (liquid Fluorine is terribly corrosive!) the energy problems of the world would be solved into the far distant future. Oh, and the LFTR also provide a very convenient method to get rid of Uranium and Plutonium waste!
                Until then, a good option is HEHE, Germany and SA have proved sun and birdchoppers can never work as a large % in the energy mix. Tony would have built one or more by now, Tumbull has been pandering until he thought he could broach the subject with MSM and the leftards.
                I wonder if anyone has looked to upgrade Hazelwood to HELE? – No wonder at all, I bet it has been seriously looked at – ‘why weren’t we told?’

                30

              • #
                Cementafriend

                Right Geof, but not chemidts but chemical engineers or metallurgical engineers who work out processes, design plant and equipment and outline operating practice.
                A few years ago there eas a article in the press may Courier Mail, thst said a Japanese company backed by their government hsd bought llsrge stockpiles of mineral sands byproduct. Can remember if it was from Fraser Is. Or from Stadbroke Is. where they still treat mineral sands.

                20

          • #
            Shauno

            People keep going on about Thorium but is there any working power plant using the stuff yet? For our first nuke power station I reckon we just stick to the state of the art 3rd generation plus design like the Westinghouse AP1000 PWR

            10

            • #
              John Andrews

              There were two nuclear power plants operated in the United States that used thorium as well as uranium-235 as the fuel. Both were high temperature graphite reactors (HTGR). The first was a proof of concept small 40 MWE reactor at Peach Bottom, Pennsylvania, designed by General Atomic in San Diego, California, and built for PECO. The fuel was graphite coated particles of uranium and/or thorium. The coating was graphite. The particles are very small, about 1 mm in diameter. The particles were formed into fuel elements by embedding them in fuel rods that contained channels for helium to flow thru and around the rods.
              The reactor ran for 10 years or so and then was decommissioned. (Sorry, I can’t find a decent page about it on the internet.)

              The second thorium fueled reactor, also an HTGR, was Fort St. Vrain, near Boulder, Colorado. The fuel for this 330 MWE reactor was in large hexagonal blocks instead of rods, but otherwise the systems were similar. This reactor was larger and had a unique pressure vessel made of concrete wrapped with steel tapes. Ultimately this reactor was unsuccessful because the fuel blocks would float out of position in the core as the high temperature, high pressure helium lifted them out of place. It did run at reduced power for a number of years, however. It has been decommissioned. See more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_St._Vrain_Generating_Station. (This article does not mention the floating blocks.)

              00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Well put Geoff.

          Perhaps for Nuclear we have now reached the point where really;

          It’s Time.

          It would finally be great to give that dopey statement some real meaning.
          KK

          60

  • #
    TdeF

    It is criminal that Hazelwood is closing soon. 1/4 of our power.

    The owners paid $2.5Bn to buy the plant in 1996, twenty years ago. They spent $80million cleaning up the output and now it is closing? Can someone else explain why? Who gains from this? Why does the cheapest, biggest supplier of reliable electricity close. Why did the Victoria government pay a $0.5Bn to keep it stop it closing? Why are we now subsidizing Alcoa to keep making aluminium uneconomically? Why is the South Australian government paying a similar amount to keep Port Pirie and Whyalla open?

    Before Turnbull shoots the breeze about new technologies in the distant future, this is a travesty. If the taxes which are closing Hazelwood stay in place, why would anyone build a new coal power plant? Why would anyone fire up the power plants in NSW on even more expensive black coal.

    My answer is the appalling carbon tax which is the LGC system introduced under the RET to force the closure of all coal and gas fired power in Australia. How does building a Super duper extremely hot boiler change the economics? Is Prime Minister Malcolm wilfully blind?

    Without the RET, Hazelwood would be profitable. Alcoa would not need subsidies. Billions in public tax money flowing ultimately to overseas interests woudl stay in Australia and we would go back to having the world’s cheapest power instead of the most expensive. Stop the RET now.

    652

    • #
      TdeF

      We the public of Australia are paying a vast sum for the science fables of a few and the swinging voters. Labor stalwarts are upset by the loss of all manufacturing jobs. Conservatives are equally upset. The Greens are rejoicing.

      3/4 of Alcoa Portland was frozen solid in the last black out, so we will subsidize them to compensate for the damage done by windmills for which we also pay. We now pay double in our electricity bills, 9c to buy 4c worth of coal or gas based electricity and more to buy coal energy and the 9c goes to build windmills which do not work.

      Worse, our taxes go to compensate those people who rely on steady, ample, cheap electricity to manufacture or refine or process. We are paying twice. Once to build windmills. Again to compensate the users because the windmills are not adequate and killing manufacturing.

      Inventor Barnes-Wallace in WW2, designer of the Wellington and the bouncing bomb and the earthquake bomb was passionate that to stop Nazi Germany, bombing had to be effective. Blow up a tank and another appears. Blow up the tank factory and the tanks stop. Even better, blow up the dams and the electricity stops.

      So here we are, seventy years on, not allowed to build dams for hydro and blowing up our own power stations. Who is directing this attack on Australia? The Greens have declared war on democracy and our lucky country. All our coal is going overseas, but they will soon stop even that. We can sit destitute on the beaches of the lucky country and serve coffee to tourists and public servants.

      602

      • #
        Michael in Brisbane

        TdeF
        You have put together all our thoughts so succinctly and passionately in your two posts here — a brilliant well written piece that should be read by as wide an audience as possible.
        How about you tidy it up a bit and send it off to The Australian?

        220

        • #
          TdeF

          Done.

          I just cannot believe no one is asking WHY Hazelwood has to close? If you owned a multi billion dollar power station with a high demand cheap product at minimal cost, why would you close it?

          Retail users pay 25c to 38c a kwhour for your electricity. You can supply to the resellers at less than 4c but they have to pay 9c to someone else for the right to buy your cheap electricity. A worthless Carbon certificate to be surrendered to the public servants who run this scheme. So you make 2c from 13c and someone who does not supply electricity to the customer receives 9c for your electricity?

          How could you run a restaurant like that?

          Say you charge $10 but your client has to give $25 to the closed restaraunt next door for the right to buy your meal? You make only $2 and your rival gets $25 for supplying nothing to your client?

          The Mafia would dream of such extortion, but the Government calls it a Renewable Energy Target. Now your client has to pay double or $50 to the agent who delivers the meal plus a government tax subsidy to keep the restaraunt from bankruptcy, say another $20 while nothing is said. So you just paid $70 for a $10 meal you wanted and this cheap good restaraunt closes anyway and the one which is never open prospers?

          The windmills turn when they please. The sun shines when it pleases. We pay and pay.

          As Tony Abbott said. This needs to stop. It is a disaster and does nothing for the planet.

          352

          • #
            AndyG55

            I would love to see the reaction if the owners of Yallourn or Loy Yang did what the owners of Hazelwood is doing.

            “Sorry, but with this RET in place, its pointless us keeping these power stations open”

            102

            • #
              TdeF

              The bad press on Yallourn has already started. It will be next. No explanation from the Government, the press, the owners. Do we have to wait for absolute disaster before saying anything?

              Can anyone explain why the State Government would quietly subsidize Hazelwood with $500 Million and then suddenly increase the price of brown coal by 300%?

              The minister said it was because there had not been a price rise for a decade? Really, 300% every ten years? Now? Remember this hits Hazelwood, Yallourn and Loy Yang hard, their primary cost. Perhaps the Unions are still wild that Kennett sold off the power stations? Then Greens hate them anyway and the limp Liberals are happy to see a total disaster so they win the next election?

              This wilful, blatant and incredible destruction of Victorian power, Victorian jobs and our future and that of the whole state has to be more than a quiet game played out. Why aren’t the power companies protesting? Why aren’t they claiming Sovereign risk on their costs and investment? Why is no one saying anything and why are we waiting for total chaos to teach the Greens a lesson? Evil prospers when good men do nothing.

              The price of brown coal should not have gone up 300% without a single protest.

              152

              • #
                TdeF

                There was a time when the hard, demanding Press asked questions. In the Age of Green press, Green Liberals, Green labour, no one asks anything. The press is silent. It is what the journalists want. It is what the politicians want, especially under Green Turnbull.

                However we have been promised submarines in the future to save Adelaide. We are now being promised new uneconomic unbuilt power stations by our Green PM.

                In the meantime, the people of Australia can just roll over and play dead. Apart from this blog, no one is asking questions. Please ask your local MP before the disaster strikes. I told you so is not good enough.

                102

              • #
                Hasbeen

                Don’t forget the press you are speaking about were the old lot, brought up through the copy boy system, mostly male, & had enough math to make change for a bus ticket.

                Todays lot are university trained, [brainwashed], mostly girls, & have to reach for a calculator to add 2 & 2.

                It is a waste of time looking to that lot for any sense.

                70

        • #
          Greebo

          The Australian? You mean the same Australian that today has a feature by Graham Lloyd telling us that going off the grid is a “must have”? In what is a blatant advertorial for Elon Musk and his Powerwall, Lloyd describes some poor bloke’s home on Sydney Harbour and his $25K solar system that will supposedly pay for itself in 5 years!

          With attitudes like that, I’ll be surprised if TdeF’s thing gets published. I’ve always regarded The Oz as perhaps the least biased ‘paper’, and I subscribe, but it seems to be going downhill lately.

          60

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Why does the cheapest, biggest supplier of reliable electricity close. Why did the Victoria government pay a $0.5Bn to keep it stop it closing? Why are we now subsidizing Alcoa to keep making aluminium uneconomically? Why is the South Australian government paying a similar amount to keep Port Pirie and Whyalla open?

      This must be AGILE and INNOVATIVE I guess.
      Perhaps the real reason is that Trumble’s goal was always to destroy not only the Liberal party, but the entire country.

      50

    • #
      clive

      For a start,you would have to get rid of”Dopey Dan,the CFMEU”man.He’s the one who put the 300% tax on coal.

      00

  • #

    Government policies have long discouraged any investment in coal-sourced electrical power generation in Australia which, in combination with a growing, energy-intense society, is why a substantial proportion is beyond the end of original design life.

    If you’re waiting for a passing freight train in Western Australia’s South West, you may spot some bulk carriages with old “State Electricity Commission” markings over-painted. A faint reminder of times past; not so long ago.

    It costs about as much to construct a clean, USCS coal plant as it does a nuclear power plant (NPP). The total costs in the latter are significantly higher due many levels of bureaucracies.

    140

  • #
    scaper...

    Looking at two in Qld. Built and supplied by the royalties of both, steaming and coking coal miners!

    60

  • #

    Ah yes, blackouts and brownouts, the bane of our life, as well as high energy costs. We’ve now installed three UPS units to support/protect our main PC, our NBN modem and our TV/satellite unit, as we get constant brownouts.

    As time goes on, I beginning to feel that we’re getting ever closer to a third world country when it comes to power unreliability and cost.

    That diesel generator is still looking promising.

    140

    • #
      David Maddison

      On the subject of UPS units, I have seen many people throw out perfectly good UPS’s because they had no clue they had replaceable lead acid gel cells in them. I just replaced a battery in one of my units, it lasted a surprisingly long seven years. The UPS must have kept it at the exact required float charge, few do that and typically overcharge them. Correct float for AGM battery is 2.27V per cell at 25C with minus 3.9mV per C of temp change above or below that (use correct sign for temp change). Pos for increase, neg for decrease.

      40

  • #
    tom0mason

    As I said at http://joannenova.com.au/2017/02/molten-lava-ball-called-earth-springs-leak-incandescent-rock-waterfall-on-hawaii/#comment-1886341

    “Indeed Dennis, so enamored of Trump and his energy policies are the Japanese that they now are planning 45 new coal-fired generating plants. Now watch as more greenie-heads explode.

    Originally from http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/01/japan-infuriating-enviros-by-building-45-new-coal-power-plants/
    via notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com blog site.

    Now Australia how can you ensure Japan gets all the coal it needs now and into the future at the right quality, time, and price?”

    80

  • #
    Mark

    Watch as we slowly align our ideas with those current in the USA. As we have done for decades. I look forward to an optimistic prosperity again, because hair shirts are seriously out of fashion right now.

    140

  • #

    HELE stands for High Efficiency Low Emissions.

    Look at the diagram at this link, and I’ll explain it a little later. This is indicative of all these new HELE plants.

    The HE part of it is (sort of) self explanatory, as it’s the efficiency of the Furnace/Boiler part of the process, more improved than on earlier coal fired plants, and because it burns at a much hotter temperature, (USC – UltraSuperCritical) and burns the coal more efficiently, then that’s where the HE part of it comes in. However, that’s not all of it because the whole process is improved, due to advancements in technology. Those technological advancements are natural, as everything has improved technologically over the years.

    Coal fired power plants will always burn coal and always emit CO2, and that’s where the LE part of it comes in, the Low Emissions. Those low emissions are calculated with respect to the actual power output. Low emissions per MWH, the power actually being generated, and again, that’s where technology improvements come mainly into play.

    Take Bayswater, state of the art in the late 1970′s. Each unit was fitted with a 660MW generator, about the largest which could be run at that time.

    Everything is calculated back from the weight of the rotor inside that generator. It has to be driven at 3000RPM (for 50Hz operation) or in lower equivalent multiples of that speed depending upon the poles.

    A generator of 660MW has a rotor weighing X tonnes,, and here we are talking many hundreds of tonnes to be driven at 3000RPM, rotating that huge weight 50 times a second. To do that, they then have to calculate the size of the multi stage turbine which can actually do that.

    Then there is the steam pressuriser, and from that, the actual steam requirement for that to drive that turbine, and from the steam, the size of the furnace and the heat requirement to make that much steam. From that, the amount of coal and air which needs to be forced into the furnace. From that the amount of coal the pulveriser can manage. From that, the amount of coal which needs to be fed into that pulveriser. From that, the amount of coal which needs to be available at all times for that, and from that, where that coal comes from. That coal is pulverised (crushed) to the consistency of the finest talcum powder for injection into the furnace.

    See the point? It all works backward.

    So now, technology has improved out of sight. Generators are now consistently up around 1000 to 1200MW Plus, and soon that will be up around 1600MW. Because technology means they can get more from smaller sizes those generators now have rotors weighing similar of even less than those old tech 660MW generators.

    The turbines are now better, and also smaller. The steam is at a higher pressure, hence again smaller turbines, the boiler furnace unit is also better tech, (back to that HE part of HELE) and so on backwards again.

    So now we are getting considerably greater power output for the amount of coal being burned.

    Everything is becoming better, and it doesn’t just stop with this, as they are now working on Advanced USC, even greater temperatures and efficiency, and as generators advance again, emissions will be lowered even further.

    Now, as you can see on the schematic at the top of the page link, this is in Germany, and here they use brown coal, and to make it even more efficient again, the coal is being dried out, using the heat of the unit itself to do that, so they are almost at the stage where they are getting similar efficiencies from brown coal that they are getting from black coal. Start at the top right of the schematic, where the coal arrives, and follow it for yourself. It’s easy enough to do.

    Everyone automatically associates coal fired power with the dirtiest units they can find, helped by greenies who do things like that.

    However, in much the same as everything advances technologically, then so has coal fired power, and everything associated with it. Those large scale manufacturers of equipment for these things are not resting on their laurels. They are making advances of their own, and if there was no money in it, do you seriously think they would even be making a start on it in the first place.

    ONE single HELE (USC) unit running a 1200MW generator will generate more power in one year than 3600MW of wind power, and that’s around 1200 to 1600 towers, or seven to 10 huge scale wind plants.

    ONE UNIT.

    And that one unit will give its power constantly, unlike the wind towers where actual power output is anybody’s guess.

    Tony.

    550

    • #

      And here, for just one unit, we’re talking about one tonne of coal every ten seconds, being crushed to powder, and then injected into the furnace, every ten seconds for as long as the unit runs.

      Stand up and spread your arms out to make a ninety degree angle, and picture yourself on the other side doing the same thing. Fill that space with crushed coal, compacted, and that is around one tonne.

      Every ten seconds.

      Tony.

      260

      • #
        John F. Hultquist

        I once was explaining soil loss from various farming practices. Reports were published on loss per acre per year. I’ve thought a good lesson for young folks would be to have a wall of about waist high with a tonne of sand on one side. By 16 years old, each kid would have to shovel the sand from one side to the other. Then another kid would have to shovel it back.

        40

        • #
          gnome

          I’ll bet that got them confused. What age was the kid when it started shovelling? How many tons in an acre-waist-high?

          30

      • #
        Raven

        Yep, and another way to visualise a ton of heavy stuff is to think about a standard CHEP pallet as the base of a cube.

        A standard CHEP pallet came about as a result of efficient materials handling for general warehousing; they permit small fork lifts with a small wheeled stance.
        Larger pallets require larger fork lifts with a larger foot print which also needs a larger space to manoeuvre. Thus, more room is required between pallet racks which reduces the space utilisation efficiency of the warehouse overall.

        It’s interesting how these things come about. Allegedly, the average car size evolved from the average horse and cart size which was developed as a result of the width of two horses asses comfortably running abreast in front of the cart.

        OK, more information than was required . . but if we think of Bill Shorten and Malcolm Turnbull, the two horses asses seem amusingly relevant.

        50

        • #
          gnome

          I think two pallets go side by side on a truck without being overwidth. Smaller is wasteful, bigger is legal but only with special provisions.

          30

    • #

      Two Power Plants, each with two units, to provide power for Sydney, and the same for Melbourne.

      You know, Capital cities, which require their electrical power for 24 hours of every day.

      Tony.

      340

    • #
      Rud Istvan

      Some numbers. US old coal fleet is ~34% efficient and average retirement ge since 1990 is 48 years. USC (HeLe) is 42-45% efficient depending on unit size and coal rank. So about 25% lower CO2 emissions per MWh. US has one, Turk in Arkansas, smallish 600 MW at capital $3000/KW. New standard 1000-1200 MW units would be less. All other US new capacity is CCGT because fracked gas is cheaper than coal (CCGT efficiencynis 61%) and capital cost is under 1500/KW geeenfield and under $1200/kw when replacing an old Coal on site.. USC actually costs less capital than a conventional coal unit of same capacity, which is why none have been built since about 2006. The higher cost superalloy bits of the boiler and turbine are more than offset by smaller boiler, smaller stack scrubber, and smaller cooling towers.

      70

      • #
        bobl

        Er well not really, a lot of American coal plants supply the waste steam for heating, this scheme means that they are a lot better than 35% efficient overall. Usefully using the waste heat goes a long way toward efficiency, for example you could combine the waste steam and CO to make syngas turning some of that waste heat back into fuel, you can use the steam to make hydrogen from methane, or you could use it to make nitrogen fertisers particularly ammonium nitrate, a potential fuel for fuel cells.

        We, and particularly greenies only consider the electrical conversion efficiency but trigeneration plants can get near 80% efficient by using waste heat and exhaust gasses effectively.

        A home trigeneration unit based on a diesel engine would be far cheaper than grid electricity even now.

        50

    • #
      TdeF

      “Now, as you can see on the schematic at the top of the page link, this is in Germany, and here they use brown coal”

      The Germans mainly run on lignite too.

      31

      • #
        TdeF

        And in a recent survey, the CO2 output for brown coal is only 6% higher than for black coal, across all the power stations in Western Europe. The cost of boiling off that water is tiny as the heat of evaporation is far less than the heat of combustion.

        31

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      All of that is absolutely true. It cannot be refuted.
      But just to play the devil’s advocate, it is fair to point out that supercritical steam has its drawbacks. A serious failure in the steam system in one of these plants could be a pretty disastrous explosion. (as is the case with any high pressure steam I suppose). Having had sufficient experience with the stuff, I would hate to be anywhere near one of these if it blew.

      20

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      I toured the Liddell power station when it was being built. 4 x 500 mw generators, and the numbers were mind boggling. 12,000 hp seemed to be everywhere. The fans forcing air into each of four furnaces about that, the same again to take away the exhaust from the furnace. At the HunterRiver there was a set of 9,000 hp Pleuger pumps drawing water from the river to a settling pond 70 ft higher, and the water level in the river appeared to be dropping about half a metre as it passed the pumps. then there was a battery of pumps pushing the water to the top of the hill, I can’t remember if it was 12,500 hp for each pump or the battery, I am pretty sure each pump. The number I remember for the pumps bringing water from the lake into the power station was 30,000 hp! Hard to believe, but I think that was it.

      I do remember that the additional evaporation from the lake to cool the power station was 34 cusecs.

      The coolers at Bayswater have a design fault. They are the same as the tower at Wallerawang, which only delivered about two thirds of design capacity. I see Wallerawang, which has closed, are about to demolish some of their low line coolers

      30

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        Liddell was designed to be cooled by seawater. It was always reckoned that the flow in the river could fail in drought, so the plan was that in the event that that happened, they would build a pipeline to the sea.

        When forty years later it did happen, They didn’t build a pipeline, they took the water from the farmers.

        40

  • #
    ROM

    .
    How prone poor Humanity is to dam up the minutest remnants of its freedom, and build an artificial roof to prevent it looking up to the clear blue sky.

    E. T. A. Hoffmann

    ——————————
    But the Bard said it best;
    .

    There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.
    Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries.
    On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.

    William Shakespeare

    110

    • #

      Heh ROM, I jest said that on the Doomsday Clock post…
      Who’s plagiarizing whom? )

      February 4, 2017 at 4:31 pm · Reply

      Donald Trump’s become a circuit breaker
      of the Gramsci long-march through institutions
      and its pervasive green-medja echo-chamber.

      Cli-sci predictions? Humans,good at innovation,
      are not so good at predicting the future,
      black swan events being likely to confound.

      But there’s a tide in the affairs of men,
      when taken at the flood may lead to fortune.
      Will Donald Trump succeed? no guarantees -

      But where we were was bound in shallows
      and in miseries. On a full sea now
      are we, afloat and we must take the current
      when it serves – or lose the venture.

      150

  • #
    pat

    3 Feb: Times of India: PTI: Govt to open commercial coal mining in FY18; 4 in Ist phase
    New Delhi: Government will open up commercial mining of coal next fiscal and four dry fuel mines will go under the hammer in the first phase.
    “Next year (2017-18) in coal sector, we will allocate 25 mines. Of these 2 will be alloted and 23 will be auctioned, some for the coking coal and some for sectors other than power, like cement and four for commercial mining,” Coal Secretary Susheel Kumar told reporter here…
    Commercial mines are alloted without specifying the end use and allow private miners to sell the fuel to buyers across sectors such as power, cement and steel…
    A group of secretaries suggested recently that government create competition for state-run Coal India Ltd (CIL) by opening up commercial coal mining…
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/govt-to-open-commercial-coal-mining-in-fy18-4-in-ist-phase/articleshow/56959785.cms

    3 Feb: Bloomberg: India Opens Coal-Mining Market for First Time in Four Decades
    by Rajesh Kumar Singh
    India plans to allow non-state mining companies to mine and sell coal for the first time in more than four decades, federal coal secretary Susheel Kumar said…
    The step may allow miners an opportunity to benefit from one of the world’s biggest coal markets, yet the offer has to be good enough to compensate for regulatory challenges, according to analysts. A broader implementation of the plan could threaten the monopoly of Coal India Ltd., which controls more than 80 percent of the nation’s production.
    “India remains a large market for coal,” said Debasish Mishra, a partner at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu LLP in Mumbai…
    The government will have to offer mines with reserves of more than 1 billion metric tons to enable scale of operation and use of technology and allow investors complete pricing freedom, Mishra said…
    India’s coal market is controlled by two state companies — Coal India and Singareni Collieries — while some private firms are allowed to mine coal for their own use…
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-02/india-opens-coal-mining-market-for-first-time-in-four-decades

    50

    • #
      ianl8888

      … reserves of more than 1 billion metric tons …

      That’s a huge deposit requirement. A hard, experienced rule of thumb suggests about a 2 billion tonne Resource to achieve a 1 billion tonne Reserve.

      I’ll watch the fine print, the pea in the shell …

      I wish them the best, of course, but marketing PR does not make a practical result.

      30

  • #
    pat

    3 Feb: Platts: Andreas Franke: German coal, gas plant output at 5-year high in January
    German coal and gas-fired power plant output in January rose to its highest in almost five years as cold weather boosted demand while below average wind and record-low winter nuclear availability reduced supply, according to power generation data compiled by think-tank Fraunhofer ISE.
    The increased need to ramp up even less efficient thermal power plants helped to lift the day-ahead monthly average power price to its highest since February 2012 with spot prices spiking at their highest since 2008 at the height of the cold spell in late January, S&P Global Platts data shows. Output from coal-fired power plants was 12.9 TWh in January, up 37% on year and averaging around 17.3 GW for the whole month, a level not reached since the extended cold spell back in February 2012, the data shows.
    Coal also removed lignite from the top of the power mix in January with lignite plants already running near maximum available capacity…
    Cold weather across Europe also lifted demand not just in Germany but also neighboring countries, especially France and the Alpine region…
    Wind power output in January dropped below 8 TWh, down 15% on year and averaging around 10.7 GW despite reaching a new hourly record just below 36 GW, the data shows.
    Daily average wind production swung between 29.5 GW on January 4 and just 1.3 GW on January 24 when German spot power prices spiked above Eur100/MWh for the first time since 2008, the data shows…READ ON
    http://www.platts.com/latest-news/coal/london/german-coal-gas-plant-output-at-5-year-high-in-26654502

    60

  • #
    ROM

    Ah! beththeserf, a suitable quote is surely in order to give import to an ode that only serf’s in their lowly status could ever ponder.
    .

    Yesterday is not ours to recover, but tomorrow is ours to win or lose.

    Lyndon B. Johnson

    70

  • #
    pat

    is this FakeNews? or what???

    3 Feb: Townsville Bulletin: Victoria Nugent: Adani’s Carmichael mine in doubt after shock court decision
    ADANI’s $21 billion coal mine has been thrown into doubt by a shock Federal Court decision that threatens to void scores of native title deals across Australia.
    Both the State and Federal governments were last night scrambling to secure legal advice on the implications of the decision, which has sent the nation’s mining industry into meltdown.
    The Bulletin has learned Attorney-General George Brandis has been poring over the judgment to determine whether urgent legislation was required to avert a crisis.
    And Adani has sought assurances from the Palaszczuk Government that the decision, handed down in Perth on Thursday, will not derail its planned Galilee Basin mega mine…READ ALL
    http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/news/adanis-carmichael-mine-in-doubt-after-shock-court-decision/news-story/d35b55a936d8e19d4cad85a16eb9dbf6

    doesn’t seem to in National MSM as yet?

    40

  • #

    Coal is boring. With Caspian/ME gas and oil you get endless opportunity for excitement: petrodollars versus upstart currencies, Turkish Kurds not happy with oil rich Kurdistan selling into Turkey, TAPI through Afghanistan, Qatar-Turkey through a dismantled Syria, Turkmen product flowing west in uneasy competition-or-partnership with Azeri and Iranian product, Russian North Stream across the Baltic by-passing cranky Ukrainians, Russian South Stream reconciling recently cranky Turks, that ill-defined “tribal unrest” in Africa where they cut pipelines as well as heads and send the world price soaring…

    Big Green is good for Big Oil/Gas, who both hate coal. Nobody kills or balkanises for coal. Coal is dull. Coal is domestic. Coal is peace. Who wants peace?

    200

  • #
    pat

    4 Feb: Townsville Bulletin: Tony Raggatt: Federal minister flags support for coal-fired power station in NQ
    TWO days after Malcolm Turnbull declared his support for clean coal-fired energy, his Minister for Northern Australia has flagged support for a coal power station in the North.
    Speaking at an industry event in Mackay yesterday, Senator Matt Canavan said the Government was already working with a potential proponent who could be provided with cheap loans under the Government’s $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility.
    “The results are clear. A new coal-fired power station would put downward pressure on power prices in North Queensland,” he said.
    “So if you want cheap power prices, you should back coal. If you don’t back coal in North Queensland, you’re on the side of higher electricity bills in the North.
    “We back clean coal options in the North and I want to make clear today that we will back investment in clean coal through our $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility.”…
    But while Senator Canavan was supported by Townsville Enterprise, Townsville Chamber of Commerce and Mayor Jenny Hill, Labor MPs and industry groups have rejected suggestions a coal-fired power station would be viable…READ ON
    http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/news/federal-minister-flags-support-for-coalfired-power-station-in-nq/news-story/406b346a4ffe194245cef119f6b5e0cc

    80

  • #
    -sweetcut

    Anyone relying on the government/union for their income is relying on all this [snip] to be true, reality has left our country a long time ago

    40

  • #
    Graham Richards

    Carbon Capture? Fact or Fiction?

    Carbon Capture. 0.

    Ghost Busters 10

    60

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘Well here’s a turn-up. Malcolm Turnbull, apostelistic slaughterer-in-chief of carbon emissions, is not only acquiescing in producing more of them but is seeking to divert funds from an agency set up to kill coal to assist in its resurrection!

    ‘Turnbull is pressuring the Clean Energy Development Fund, the renegade agency created by Gillard and protected by the ALP, Greens and assorted know-nothing independents, to provide funds for “modern” coal-powered generators. It has also talked the $100 billion Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank into changing its lending policy to support for coal-fired electricity generation.’

    Alan Moran / Catallaxy Files

    50

    • #
      TdeF

      The massive penalties, the LGCs of the RET law are not sensitive to CO2 output. There are only two types of power, fossil fuel and everything else. So there is no way any new coal powered generator will ever be funded. You cannot make money. Ever.

      It may have escaped people’s attention, but the RET puts gas in the same class and Victoria, NSW have banned exploration for new gas. Fracking will not happen here. We are locked into a cycle of Green destruction and Turnbull is talking about a future which is not possible under the RET scheme.

      What possesses him to talk about an emissions intensive tax when we have the RET is beyond me. It is all distraction politics, new coal burners, new taxes. Our electricity bills are already the highest in the world for no good reason. We are already borrowing $1Bn a week to send money overseas for windmills. Malcolm inherited his wealth and keeps his cash overseas. There is no way he would invest in a coal power station.

      71

  • #
    pat

    TonyfromOz & others might like to comment:

    3 Feb: AFR: Ben Potter: Clean coal sounds good, but the numbers weigh against it
    Matthew Warren, head of the Australian Energy Council, said this week even today’s high efficiency, low emissions (HELE) coal plants are “uninvestible” and none of his members – the largest power generators in the land – plans to build one.
    They’re prohibitively expensive, and although they emit less carbon per megawatt hour than existing coal plants, they still emit a hell of a lot of carbon – about 700 kilograms per MWh.
    That means they’re exposed to unknowable carbon risk for 50 years – their economic lifetime – while the ministers flourishing taxpayer cheques and no carbon price might only be there for another 2½ years…
    Even subsidies won’t square that circle, Warren said…
    But HELE plants are costly – estimates range from $3 billion for 1000 MW plant (Bloomberg New Energy Finance) to $5 billion (CME, based on South African plants) for the latest (“ultra-supercritical”) HELE plant . The levelised (capital plus operating ) cost of power from a newly built plant of this type is $134-200/MWh, against $61-118/MWh for a new wind plant and $74-90/MWh for a new gas plant.
    HELE plant costs will come down as more are built, but a carbon price would hit a coal plant harder than a gas plant and much harder than wind or solar plant…
    HELE coal plant’s carbon risk could be virtually eliminated by including carbon capture and storage. But this adds a lot more cost – about $3 billion to a 1000MW plant. Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) says the levelised cost of power from such a plant is hard to estimate, because the technology is commercially untried, but could run to $350MWh unless the government guaranteed the debt, in which case it would still be more than $200/MWh…
    The Australian Energy Market Operator doesn’t expect any new coal plant to be built here. BNEF says coal and gas generation will fall from 70 per cent of capacity today to 16 per cent by 2040, while wind and solar will jump from 14 per cent to 59 per cent and more than a third of capacity will be “behind the meter” in people’s homes.
    http://www.afr.com/business/mining/coal/clean-coal-sounds-good-but-the-numbers-weigh-against-it-20170202-gu4220

    3 Feb: UK Independent: Ian Johnston: UK ranked 24th out of 28 EU member states for renewable energy
    The European Union has a target of 20 per cent of energy use coming from carbon-free sources by 2020.
    However there is a vast difference between the best and worst performing states…
    The UK’s figure is just 8.2 per cent, putting it in 24th place out of 28 and not far ahead of last-placed Luxemburg on 5 per cent…
    However the European Commission said the EU as a whole remained “well on track” to meet it 2020 target, with an average figure of 16.4 per cent in 2015…
    The figures include electricity consumption, but also the energy used for heating and transport…
    More than 20 per cent of the UK’s electricity now comes from renewable energy, but the country has struggled to make an impact on the greenhouse gases produced by cars and other vehicles and also to heat people’s homes…
    Here is a list of each EU country showing its renewable energy share in 2015:…ETC
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-ranked-24-out-of-28-eu-member-states-renewable-energy-wind-farms-fossil-fuels-solar-panels-a7559376.html

    30

    • #
      AndyG55

      HELE power is as clean as it gets.

      Clean up of basically everything except H₂O and highly beneficial biosphere plant food, CO₂.

      123

    • #
      toorightmate

      Despite what the ABC, ALP and Greens have to say, the capital cost per Mw for an HELE coal power station is far less than that for wind or solar.
      AND the stations last for 60+ years
      AND all day
      AND every day.

      Regardless of the toing and froing about costs of various forms or power generation, the horseshit about CO2 having any measurable effect on the world’s climate must stop.
      Enough damage has been done and the destitute people in Africa and Asia should no longer be insulted by the civilised world. We should support the introduction of low cost power to these poor souls.

      110

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      pat:
      those figures for renewables include hydro. As some countries in Europe have lots of hydro their figures look much better. Exclude hydro and the UK shoots up the table.

      In passing I note that Denmark gets a figure of 25% whereas the wind generation of 42% in 2015 is the Greenies talking point.

      50

    • #
      tom0mason

      Read HERE about what is wrong about the Independent report. As for the green monkey that pretends to understand, Ian Johnston, dumb and stupid underrates his unique lack of intelligence.

      40

    • #
      Raven

      That means they’re exposed to unknowable carbon risk for 50 years – their economic lifetime . .

      Sure, let’s pontificate the “unknowable carbon risk” against the knowable benefit.

      Do these people even think?

      40

  • #
    pat

    AFR says HELES no good for us, but good for Japan!

    3 Feb: AFR: Jennifer Hewett: Japan has good reason to burn coal for electricity
    But with Japan’s nuclear industry only just getting started again – with only two nuclear plants now operating under strict new rules – and severe political constraints over the industry’s future, the country is readjusting the balance between security, cost and emissions.
    That includes taking plenty of LNG from Australia. But in a country that imports 95 per cent of its energy needs, imported coal is considered the cheapest option – cheaper than gas and certainly cheaper than renewables. It also helps Japan’s traditional concerns about energy security by avoiding relying too heavily on one option…
    So the Abe government and utilities are planning on building dozens more modern high-efficiency, low emission (HELE) or what are known as ultra-supercritical coal-fired plants to help replace the loss of nuclear power. This is despite Japan’s international commitment to reduce its emissions by 26 per cent by 2030…
    And unlike Australia, the politics of energy in Japan means these plants will have little problem attracting finance…
    http://www.afr.com/business/mining/coal/japan-has-good-reason-to-burn-coal-for-electricity-20170202-gu4csz

    40

  • #
    TedM

    “Japan will use Australian coal to build” Jo shouldn’t this read “to fuel 45 modern coal fired plants”.

    40

    • #
      AndyG55

      Concrete and steel use a lot of coal, thermal and metallurgical respectively.

      So our coal will be used to build those power stations, as well as the fuel them. :-)

      62

  • #
    TedM

    Hope I’m not being too picky.

    40

  • #
    cedarhill

    It takes a long time for politicians to understand what humans learned millennia ago: energy is life, cheap energy is prosperity.

    80

    • #
      toorightmate

      Cedarhill,
      Mo need to be so verbose.
      “It takes a long time for politicians to understand FULL STOP.

      30

  • #
    john

    Safety probe launched after collapse of 480-foot wind turbine in Ayrshire

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/safety-probe-launched-after-collapse-9716684

    The astonishing structural failure of the £2 million machine has prompted demands for information by the community in Barrhill.

    The Kilgallioch wind farm is operated by Scottish Power Renewables which had failed to alert the public to the incident for SEVEN DAYS.

    Luckily nobody was near the 160-ton turbine at the time it fell.

    The Ayrshire Post’s source says the 328-foot tower “creased” at the access door at ground level.

    The three blades and switchgear were all smashed on impact.

    And he added: “Debris was spread over half a kilometre and a crane was been brought in to try and clear the damage.

    “The company was trying to keep things hush-hush and were not keen to say anything.

    “The site is so large and unseen from public roads that the only way to see the collapse is from the air.

    “Local people want the alarm raised as they feel things are going on unreported.”

    Other collapses have been revealed in Northern Ireland, California and Denmark.

    The Ayrshire Post was alerted to the Barrhill collapse on Friday by an anonymous caller.

    But there was no visible damage either from the main Newton Stewart Road or the B7027 Drumlamford Estate back route.

    Scottish Power refused to answer specific questions on the incident or provide a photograph of the debris.

    The company claimed “all proper reporting procedures have been followed.”

    90

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    A brown dog with a green tail.
    I can see a coal plant from where I write this.
    It is about 50 years old.
    This week they are tearing down the original stack. The plant engineers suggest that the plant
    has been completely overhauled perhaps 4 times over during its lifetime.
    Generation has become cleaner, more efficient, ad cheaper.
    Coal comes from a captive mine, via a 100 car unit train, which makes a round trip to the mine about twice a week and requires
    3-4 people to unload.

    Recently, however, our rates took a hike, as the company was forced to build a solar field, which they choose to site adjacent to the coal plant.
    The capital and operating costs of this array made a fairly serious dent in the plant’s overall efficiency, without out generating one iota of net power
    greater into the marketplace.

    One is reminded of the Kurt Vonnegut novel, where the cognitively capable have to wear a device that hampers them to level the playing field.
    Must we cripple our economies, to allow an inefficient world to compete?

    Yup.

    I’d wager that the Japanese, responding to an existential threat, probably don’t include such performance reducing green prophylactics.

    When the solar plant, politically forced, fails, only the rate payers and shareholders suffer. Those who insisted upon it have no accountability whatsoever.

    The more cynical among the engineers suggest that as soon as the regulators lose site of operations, the solar power can simply be shunted to a resistive load, allowing the coal plant to operate again as designed. Perhaps the solar power can be dedicated to heating the lagoon adjacent that is a refuge for manatee.

    170

    • #
      gnome

      Those devices you can wear to reduce cognitive capability – I want one. Think how much happier I’d be in a world where the global warming hoax is considered normal, if I could just reduce my scepticism.

      You just know it has to be the best possible solution!

      40

  • #
    Ruairi

    They know what to do in Japan,
    When it comes to an energy plan,
    With more plants as their goal,
    To be powered by coal,
    Which Australia should do and they can.

    140

  • #
    dp

    The death rattle of the Kyoto Protocol writ large.

    80

  • #
    David Maddison

    Obviously windmill power is extremely expensive and fundamentally useless but nevertheless Australia still pays a huge amount more for electricity than other places with a similar heavy parasitic load of windmills.

    Why is Australia’s electricity so much more expensive than say the US and Canada who also have large numbers of windmills?

    50

  • #
    Dave in the States

    Well this means the course toward the future is now set. The future is HELE coal or economic/technologically equivalents, not, expensive, insufficient, and unreliable, renewable s. The USA and Oz better wake up and get with the new course if they want to remain globally competitive in the future. The same for the UK. One can not be competitive with significantly more expensive energy. Germany must dump its disastrous energy policies if it is to remain an economic leader as well.

    20

    • #
      David Maddison

      I believe a typical price in the US is US$0.12 per kWh = A$0.16 vs typical Australian domestic consumer cost of A$0.24 per kWh.

      Australia used to have among the cheapest electricity in the world.

      40

  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    Just watching their abc and an interview with the watermelon leader (Di Natalie) who among other things said Turdballs clean coal generator suggestion was out of the big tobacco play book ??
    Also said the greens know how to keep the country from far right groups voting for the likes of One nation .
    He reckons a greater push on clean renewables and tackling dangerous climate change will get them more votes and Hanson less votes , another politician who is blind to the obvious .

    80

    • #
      Raven

      . . (Di Natalie) who among other things said Turdballs clean coal generator suggestion was out of the big tobacco play book ??

      What Di Natalie spectacularly fails to grasp is that the tobacco companies were pushing tobacco company science . . just like governments push government science.

      Tobacco company science was exposed just like the current government science.
      But try to tell The Greens that and they won’t believe you. *said in my best Monty Python voice*

      50

  • #
    nicholas tesdorf

    When the lunatics (Greens) are in charge of the Asylum and our energy policy. nothing can come as a surprise anymore.

    50

  • #
    David Maddison

    I don’t like the “LE” meaning “low emissions” part of HELE as it sends the message that “emissions” are a problem.

    Emissions have not been a problem with coal power stations for decades and basically the only things they emit are CO2 and water which are good for the environment so should not really be classed as “emissions” (implying they are bad).

    70

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      A good point, Dave.
      I cringe when Andy claims this will create more atmospheric CO2.
      At the same time, Andy maintains that fossil fuel combustion has no effect on atmospheric CO2 because of Henry’s Law.
      We can’t have it both ways.

      20

  • #
    David Maddison

    Here is a short video about America’s most recent ultra supercritical plant.

    As this video was made during the Obama regime it was also stated to be the last to be built but no doubt many more will be built under President Trump.

    As Kanada is heavily committed to windmills maybe the US could take on the job of supplying cheap and reliable to them as well?

    https://youtu.be/ARYO9Hp06CM

    40

  • #
    Crakar24

    “Loud I’ll mannered people that are bad at math”

    That’s gold Jo, pure rolled gold, thanks for the laugh.

    50

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Cool story, Japan bro.
    Meanwhile in Sweden…

    Sweden pledges to cut all greenhouse gas emissions by 2045

    “Our target is to be an entirely fossil-fuel-free welfare state,” said Climate Minister Isabella Lovin.

    “We see that the advantages of a climate-smart society are so huge, both when it comes to health, job creation and also security. Being dependent on fossil fuels and gas from Russia is not what we need now,” she added.

    That’s okay, you can be dependent on Australian coal instead! Problem solved! ;-)

    The Government said the target would require domestic emissions to be cut by at least 85 per cent and the remaining emissions would be offset by planting trees or by sustainable investments abroad.

    That Welfare State will be giving welfare to investment bankers, U.N. bureaucrats, and robber barons in 3rd world countries then?

    Meanwhile, China is “investing billions and billions of dollars in solar (…) it’s a game changer.

    Solar panels are irrelevant to Sweden’s energy concerns when solar panels would be pointless in the long Swedish winter nights. Most of China’s investment is in producing solar panels, but China is a command economy which puts people to work almost regardless of the value of that work, and they’re counting on selling these solar white elephants to gullible nations such as Sweden.

    Those that are still wanting to invest in fossil fuels will be ultimately the losers,” Ms Lovin warned.

    Tchya! Japan are…like… such losers, for about 5 hours per day. :-D

    All that and more at the paradoxically titled “Independent” news site, which is actually so dependent it mindlessly parrots what the “97%” believe:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/sweden-pledges-greenhouse-gas-emissions-zero-2045-paris-agreement-a7561111.html

    Don’t miss the inset “10 photographs to show to anyone who doesn’t believe in climate change”. My favourite was going to be the picture of smoke from a grass fire. That was until I saw the bonus 11th picture of a cloud which they admit has nothing to do with climate change, but just co-incidentally looks like a giant red fist clenched in anger descending out of the sky. The claw of the sky dragon perhaps? ;-)

    60

  • #
    Mark M

    Who? Who are these early incompetents who can’t read thermometers correctly?

    1877.
    That year, Henry Russell, the long-time NSW government astronomer and part-time meteorologist, created the first weather map to be published in an Australian newspaper, running in the Sydney Morning Herald 140 years ago, this Monday. (Feb 6, 2017)

    Early efforts were often led by energetic characters such as Queenslander Clement Wragge, known for his “mop of flaming red hair and explosive temper to match”.

    Wragge came up with the novel idea of naming low-pressure systems that came out of the southern ocean, bringing storms and rain.

    http://linkis.com/www.smh.com.au/envir/jD15V

    BoM: Temperature data prior to 1910 should be used with extreme caution as many stations, prior to that date, were exposed in non-standard shelters, some of which give readings which are several degrees warmer or cooler than those measured according to post-1910 standards.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/cdo/about/about-airtemp-data.shtml

    30

  • #

    Meanwhile in Europe; they’re already declared success in meeting their 2020 emissions targets last year.

    With respect to the objectives set by the EU 20-20-20 strategy, nine Member states have already reached the level required to meet their national renewable energy targets for 2020: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania, Romania, Finland and Sweden. Moreover, Denmark and Austria are less than 1 percentage point from their 2020 targets, Eurostat stated. The furthest away from their renewable energy goals are: France (8.7 percentage points from reaching its national 2020 objective), the Netherlands (8.5 pp), the United Kingdom (8.0 pp) and Ireland (7.4 pp).

    It’s a blunder of arithmetic exorcisms.

    Last week, the German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy announcing a glorious advance to the rear. There’s a PDF in which the Minister declares:

    die Energiewende in Deutschland ist kein fernes Zukunftsprojekt – sie ist erfolgreich und längst Gegenwart

    Translated:

    Germany’s Energiewende is no distant future project; it is successful and long established.

    Download and flip through the PDF “brochure” and see if you can find images of Germans making stuff.
    The English-language web pages for foreign consumption have a less triumphant tone.


    In the real world; outside of the bunker:

    Germany’s coal-powered energy transition gathers pace. Licence has just been granted to complete and operate a new coal-fired power plant. Most of the construction was complete long ago and the plant is expected to be on the grid in the first half of 2018

    The Datteln 4 coal-fired power plant will be equipped with an advanced multi-step flue gas purification system, which will eliminate nitrogen oxides, dust and sulphur from the flue gas.

    Out of the total electricity produced, 413MW of traction current will be delivered to Deutsche Bahn’s grid for its railway system. The remaining 642MW will be transmitted to the region’s public electricity grid.

    Using combined heat and power technology, the Datteln 4 power plant will also produce approximately 1,000GWh of district heating, sufficient to supply for approximately 100,000 houses. …

    Note the importance of district heating; something that solar and wind power cannot provide.

    It’s estimated by some that Germany’s CO2 emissions from coal-fired power generation will in 2022, when the last nuclear power plant has to be shut down, exceed the levels of 1990. Either that or a deep economic recession/depression.

    [Mods: sorry about all the links.]

    80

  • #

    Some links broken. I’ve “upgraded” it to a blog article with working (I hope) links.

    30

  • #

    I don’t normally read the Daily Mail, but I think they are on to a good scoop here:

    “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

    Someone posted it on another website that I regularly follow:

    “Energy Matters”

    http://euanmearns.com/

    20

  • #
    David Maddison

    Which will be the last surviving reliable power producer in Australia, not counting hydro?

    As Australian governments set out to destroy our reliable and cheap (without carbon tax) fossil power producers which do you think will be the last standing? SA doesn’t have much left and they rely on Hazelwood in VIC to be soon shut down.

    How soon before there isn’t enough reliable power in the eastern grid (SA, VIC, TAS, NSW and QLD) to keep the show afloat?

    50

  • #
    AndrewWA

    Wow…just received my very first website ban from RenewEconomy (reneweconomy.com.au) which had a headline article “Clean coal” most expensive new power supply, says Bloomberg New Energy Finance (and not all that clean)”.

    Did nothing more than added some facts about HELE power plants, the ongoing need for base load power, the impractical 50% RET and the current poor contribution to the East Coast Grid by Wind and Solar.

    Bit surprising from “Australia’s best informed and most read web-site focusing on clean energy news and analysis, as well as climate policy.” (sarc)

    Perhaps it was my reference to the Aneroid Energy site and posting a few telling plots???

    70

    • #

      Your comment ought to still be on Disqus, even when they censor it from their blog.

      I’ve added my 2 cents, reproduced here for (in)convenience:

      BNEF aren’t Consulting Engineers, are they?
      Are they licenced investment advisors?

      So they suffer no dire consequences for providing advice that turns out to be junk and damages those who accept the advice. How much is BNEF “advice” really worth if they have no responsibility for the quality of the advice?

      While CCS is definitive crap; in Engineering and Economic terms, technologies such as ultra-supercritical steam allow for much more efficient combustion of coal, reducing the total amount of coal required for the same amount of energy generation.

      Australia, had it begun converting to such HELE (High Efficiency, Low Emissions) technologies in the 1990′s would have met the Kyoto emissions reductions goals by now; without casting cities into blackouts and ruining energy-intense industries that power tens of thousands productive jobs directly; and perhaps a million in supporting industries.

      CCS requires about 30% more coal to be burnt in order to theoretically capture all the CO2 from combustion, clean, compress and pump it “somewhere”. While CCS “works”; it does not scale to the solve the purported problem.

      CCS proponents may only be interested only in selling more coal.

      The only technically viable energy generation technology for energy intense societies like Australia’s is nuclear power. Dr Alan Finkel is a proponent of nuclear power.

      Coal is more acceptable than nuclear power by radiophobic society in Australia.

      30

  • #
    CameronH

    There are already three super critical plants in Queensland. The last three built, Callide C, Kogan Creek, and Millmeran. If the government had not been meddling in the electricity supply industry we would probably have a few more, our electricity prices would still be very low and our manufacturing industries would not have been destroyed.

    30